What Educators Want from a Reading Assessment
We administered a survey on what educators really thought about and wanted from their reading assessments. What we learned from the 100+ educators who responded to the survey surprised us, but the most interesting findings were in what educators actually wanted from their assessments.
Demographics
The respondents were K-12 administrators representing 36 states; 11% of the respondents were from urban districts, 24% — suburban, 65% — rural. In terms of district size, 43% were under 600 students 25% — 600–2.5k,
9% — 2.5k-5k, 8% — 5k-10k, 11% — 10k-25k, and 3% 25k+.
Use of Technology
Three quarters of the districts (75%) were using Google Classroom, and the remainder was mostly split between Schoology (14%), Canvas (11%), and SeeSaw (7%) — some districts used more than one. But a few districts were also using other LMS such as Microsoft Classroom, Otus, Edgenuity, and Edmentum. Overwhelmingly, educators want to be able to administer their assessments through the learning management system they use.
Purchasing Assessments
Districts used a variety of funding sources to purchase their reading assessments, most often Title I funding, local funding, and grants. However, CARES and ESSER funding is now available for purchasing high-quality assessments that will help address learning loss by accurately assessing students’ academic progress and assisting educators in meeting students’ academic needs, including through differentiating instruction.
Use of Assessments
We learned that 60% of the respondents were using two and 20% three or more assessments, suggesting there is no one-size-fits-all assessment out there. Interestingly, despite school closures, only 5% of respondents did not use any reading assessments in the 2020–21 SY. It was no surprise that the majority of districts were gravitating to F&P, iReady, NWEA, and STAR, with STAR being the clear winner used by 40% of the respondents; however, 5% were planning to drop STAR for iReady, DIBELS, NWEA, F&P, and Capti Assess (similar to STAR, but more thorough). F&P, iReady, and NWEA were used in roughly 25% of districts each. The second tier was represented by DIBELS and Lexia Rapid at under 10% of districts, followed by a long tail of emerging reading assessments, including Capti Assess, DRA, mClass, AimsWeb, etc.
Satisfaction with Assessments
What surprised us was how dissatisfied the respondents were with the popular assessments such as F&P, iReady, NWEA, and especially STAR. Only 10% of the districts were happy with their assessments, but there was no clear winner. More than 50% of the respondents were somewhat satisfied, and a third (33%) were not happy with their assessments. What is more, many respondents expressed concerns that their reading assessments (across the board) were taking too much time to administer, and yet were not thorough enough. In fact, a number of administrators complained about inconsistent results, which made educators question assessment accuracy and validity. That is why many administrators are now on the lookout for any new research-based assessment that will address their concerns.
The Need for Speed vs. Thoroughness
When asked for the one thing that they would change about their assessment, 16% of respondents wanted to make their assessments shorter because they either wanted to reclaim some of the instructional time or wanted to assess students more frequently. Interestingly, 9% of the respondents wanted to be able to assess more reading skills, which is in conflict with the desire for shorter assessments. Assessment designers know that the more questions they use to assess a specific skill, the more accurate and consistent the results will be. What we found particularly interesting is what seems like a contradiction between the need for a faster assessment vs. an assessment that is more thorough (in breadth — the variety of skills assessed, and depth — the number of questions and the amount of time devoted to each skill). See also: Top 3 Things Educators Love about this ETS-Developed Reading Assessment.
Usability Improvement Requests
Additional requests included easier to understand reports (12%), help with preparing interventions (11%), and improved ease of administration (9%). The report improvements included requests for more details on the performance of at-risk students, opportunities for students to explain their answers, easier to understand for students and parents, and more focus on areas of struggle. Requests for help with intervention were related to the reports, including actionable reports and automatically created interventions.
Addressing Educator Needs
We used these findings to improve Capti Assess — an ETS-developed diagnostic reading assessment that was designed to inform instruction and intervention, as well as address learning loss. Capti Assess is extremely easy to use, it takes less than a minute to set up, and it can be administered via Google Classroom, Canvas, or Schoology. Capti Assess uses the ETS ReadBasix™ which is based on decades of reading science and assessment research and which was shown to produce accurate results that are consistent across administrations.
What is unique about Capti Assess is that it allows educators to choose the foundational reading skills they want to assess, which drastically cuts down the assessment time because educators do not need to assess all 6 skills in most cases. Furthermore, being able to assess any of the foundational skills in under 10 minutes makes it easy to reassess students as often as needed. Capti Assess also provides easy-to-read graphical reports, with score interpretations, progress tracking, and actionable instructional recommendations.
If you want to learn more about Capti Assess, watch this demo. Visit our website to see the research behind the assessment. Learn more about the subtests and the foundational skills they are designed to assess. Hear what educators like you had to say about Capti Assess.
If you have questions or want to see a demo with Google Classroom, Schoology, or Canvas, Email us: info@captivoice.com
